Presidential Candidate Romney would bring Bush's NeoCon's back into power for more of their abysmally failing policies

In a speech on Friday Oct 7, 2011, Romney made a promise which should cause many to reject him for seeking to re-establish the utterly abysmal policy failures of the Bush43 administration.  Most news coverage didn't comment on on the meaning of the promise, but fortunately Rachel Maddow not only noticed this but opened her show that evening with awesome discussion of that promise (see video below).  What was the promise?  It was that he would lead the country into what he called “an American Century.”

The speech was his foreign policy vision, was delivered at The Citadel, and was on the 10th anniversary of the start of the Afghanistan war.  The speech called for strengthening the military and economy, which is expected rhetoric from a Republican.  What stands out is the phrase “an American Century,” the history of that phrase (Project For A New American Century), that he has hired a dozen or so PNAC Neocon's to be foreign policy advisors, and how the rhetoric strongly refers back to the PNAC Neocon policies that fueled the utter abysmal failures of the Bush43 years.

Sounds nice and benign doesn't it?  Calling for a stronger military and economy is expected from Republicans.  The phrase "An American Century" surely sounds nice to a country accustomed to being the strongest/richest country of this era.  To understand the significance of “an American Century” we have to revisit the Bush43 years, and think over what happened, so that by remembering our history we can avoid committing the same failures again.

His words connect directly with The Project for a New American Century, an infamous Neocon think-tank from the 90's that concocted the whole nightmare plan of "Let's Invade Iraq To Establish Moderate Friendly Democracy In The Middle East To Sway The Middle East To Be Friendly To Us".

The Invade-Iraq-To-Sway-The-Middle-East plan originated in the mid-90's in position papers published by the PNAC.  PNAC members used those position papers in political rabble rousing, congressional testimony, etc, and eventually many PNAC members came into power when Bush43 was elected.  Then the 9/11 attack happened and you may recall the perpetrators had been living in Afghanistan but were primarily Saudi nationals.  And that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.  And the Bush43 administration lied and connived things to make it look like Iraq was a horrible evil threat that had to be extinguished, never mind that the threat came from Afghanistan and that the threat-mongers were getting away scott-free.  The illegal war against Iraq was launched because of how the Bush43 administration twisted facts around the 9/11 attack to justify attacking Iraq.

Hence the PNAC Neocons originated the Invade-Iraq plan in the 90's, they came into power with Bush43, then used their first opportunity to twist American policy into committing the U.S. to a war to topple the Iraqi government.

But let's get back to Romney - because his actions are more profound than a simple statement in a speech.  He has hired a dozen or more former Bush43 Administration staffers, as foreign policy advisors, who had played key roles in creating the policies just outlined, and were of the PNAC Neocon crowd.  When Romney promised us “an American Century,” then, he can only have been referring to the Project For A New American Century.

Especially given the rhetoric from the speech that's directly out of the PNAC talking points:

“In an American Century, America has the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world.  In an American Century, America leads the free world and the free world leads the entire world.”

“If America is the undisputed leader of the world, it reduces our need to police a more chaotic world.  But know this: While America should work with other nations, we always reserve the right to act alone to protect our vital national interest.”

“full spectrum of hard and soft power to influence events before they erupt into conflict.”

These statements come directly out of the PNAC mythology.  That America must assert a Pax Americana upon the world because we are the strongest country, the sole remaining superpower, and that it's our duty as a moral and strong country to force other countries to behave correctly.  Or something like that.

The last statement eerily harkens of Bush43's pre-emptive war doctrine.  That it is correct to stomp on countries we knew are going to commit evil before they did so.  And that we have the right to "act alone," presumably flouting international law just as the Bush43 administration did.

What actually happened under the Bush43 administration was wholesale flouting of International law, repeated treasonous acts by  administration officials, lies to Congress, lies to the UN (The "case" for War), lies to the American people, the launching of an illegal stupid war against Iraq (Background material for the second Gulf "War", Is the Gulf War II Impeachable?, Powell Rebuts criticism, Next: Iran?, It's Official - No WMD Found, The Man who Knew: More about the Lies, Perle admits invasion was illegal: Say what?, Review: Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq …, Review: Will they trust us again?, How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelli…, US Invasion of Iraq officially FRAUD, An utter and abysmal failure) that has caused tremendous pain and suffering throughout the Middle East, and much more.

As Maddow noted in the segment visible below, Romney also announced his national security advisory team.  That team of 22 people included 15 from the Bush43 administration, 6 of whom had been part of the Project for a New American Century crowd.  These are the people who advised the Bush43 administration into doing all the stupid things perpetrated in those years.

Hence, it's fair game to assume his plan is to reincarnate the Bush43 years.  Lest we want to live through that nightmare story again, this is a presidential candidate that must be defeated.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In Foreign Policy Speech, Romney Calls for an ‘American Century’

Mitt Romney calls for century of American dominance: Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential frontrunner, has called for a century of American dominance and greater defence spending, in his first major venture into US foreign policy.

Romney Gives Bush Neocons Another Chance

And for more on PNAC, here's Source Watch's site on them -- Project for the New American Century.

Reactions to bin Laden's death indicates this won't make much change or difference?

Late last night it was announced Osama bin Laden had been killed in Pakistan, and a first thoughts was this wouldn't make any difference. (Osama bin Laden has been killed but will it make any long term difference?) Basically the argument is the radicalization of a generation of people all over the world due to the warring over Terrorism. In yesterdays blog post I wrote about the generation of Middle East people who've seen invasion and/or occupation of several countries by Western forces, widespread death and destruction, and this has acted to radicalize those people. But it occurs to me, the radicalization also extends to Americans due to the 10 years (or more) of demonization of the Terrorists.

Listening to voices on NPR reports this morning I hear grudge-holding and an inability to move on with ones life. For example they interviewed a fellow whose fiancee had been killed in the World Trade Center collapse, and he's turned his car into a rolling billboard with pictures of his fiancee with messages to "Never Forget". As sad as his story is, as understandable it is he's done this, it's a pattern that simply re-opens the wounds over and over and doesn't proceed to healing. The kind of healing which allows you to move on with your life rather than hanging on to the wound keeping it festering inside. I don't want to go too far down this line of thinking, and some events like the Sept 11 2001 attack are just so big that it's hard to imagine having real forgiveness towards the perpetrators. Spiritual traditions over millennia such as Christianity have taught forgiveness as a key central method for achieving peace.

This was a statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in which she made it clear the efforts to stomp out the "Syndicate of Terror" would not stop. In one breath she expressed a hope that al Qaida's victims would find comfort that Justice had been Done, and then in the next breath she's saying the hunt will never stop. On the one hand Authority's role is to mete out mete out Justice in the form of prison sentences or executions. Right? On the other hand the "hunt will not stop" is a way to keep re-awakening the wounds these traumatic events have placed in our mutual psyche.

Islamists vow bin Laden death will not mute Jihad call: Contains quotes from several Islamic Jihadi message boards like "Osama may be killed but his message of Jihad will never die. Brothers and sisters, wait and see, his death will be a blessing in disguise." This is the voice of a radicalized person.

Taliban commander vows to avenge Bin Laden's death: Quotes several "commanders" in several Terrorist organizations saying this "will bring no change to jihad." It's a martyrdom situation and his value as a marketing image will not be diminished by death. Right? The article describes Osama bin Laden as "the Shiekh" as someone who inspired people all over the Middle East into fighting a "holy war (a.k.a. Jihad) against the infidels and their agents." The movement is described as having separated "ideology from leadership" in that local al Qaida "affiliate" organizations have sprung up without direct oversight by the al Qaida leadership.

That same article has an interesting paragraph indicating a hatred towards al Qaida by regular folk in the Middle East.

For many years, the Sheikh had been isolated, his organisation disrupted not only by US kill teams and lethal drone attacks but also by general Muslim apathy and outright hostility to the organisation. For most of the victims are Muslim: not only Shia Muslims and Sunni moderates and seculars, but also bystanders who have committed the deadly sin of buying vegetables while one of those holy warriors decides to fight his battle and start his ascendance to the hereafter.

Osama bin Laden's death resonates in Rochester area: Has a range of reactions in the Rochester NY area. From "The only thing I can say is: it’s about time. I would’ve liked if we could’ve taken him alive and put him on trial. Then, a lot more people would understand the role that he played on 9/11." To "It’s probably not going to last very long, but that’s what they’re fearing right now: repercussions." To "It's about time and I'm glad we got him. Getting these guys is good. We are doing something and we are getting them." To "I don't think killing anyone is a good thing. People like bin Laden certainly need to be taken out of circulation, but I don't think killing is the best way to do it. I'm glad he will not bother anyone anymore, but there are probably plenty more like him." To "I felt a sense of relief. It’s been a long time since that day. It’s not going to bring Rich back." To "It’s a mixed feeling because you don’t want to celebrate someone being murdered, but it does give us a sense of security." To "I’m thrilled he’s captured and killed. It’s sad to me that we’re solving this awful crime with a killing." To "It’s great news. It’s been a long time. I feel like that means the war is finally over." To "It's outstanding, but I don't think it changes much for us in Afghanistan. "We still have the Taliban to contend with and we obviously have to finish what we started."

Beyond bin Laden: Is a post on the "Shadow Government" blog at ForeignPolicy.com which describes itself as being "written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition" so we should take this with a grain of salt in that it might be skewed towards ObamaSlander. In any case it's an interesting article. They start with saying the person who "emerges as the leader of al Qaeda will be enormously consequential for the movement's direction and appeal throughout the Muslim world." A supposedly likely successor, Ayman al Zawahiri, "has repeatedly emphasized Egypt as the centerpiece of al Qaeda's quest to re-establish a caliphate in the heart of the Islamic world." And: "Protracted wars are not decided on the outcome of any individual episode. Rather, they turn on the progressive attrition of the adversary's sources of power. Similarly, this conflict will not end in a single battle or campaign. Rather, al Qaeda and its extremist vision will be defeated through the patient accumulation of quiet successes. Victory will include discrediting extremist ideology, creating fissures between and among extremist groups, and reducing them to the level of a nuisance, groups that can be tracked and handled by local law enforcement groups."

Osama bin Laden has been killed but will it make any long term difference?

A long nightmare is over? The leader of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, has been killed in northwest Pakistan. I suppose it's not a surprise he was there, except that he wasn't in the mountains but in Abbottabad, in the far north next to the border with Kashmir. According to statements on BBC World Service right now, he was living in a Mansion in a medium sized city, just a few hundred yards from the police station, and one assumes it wasn't exactly a secret he was there and there must have been some cooperation with the Pakistani government that he could be living there. But my question is whether this will make any real difference. UPDATE: For a followup see Reactions to bin Laden's death indicates this won't make much change or difference?

It's been nearly 10 years since the Sept 11 attacks which made bin Laden so famous and supposedly the number one target of the war on Terror, but in recent years it seemed that US leadership forgot the reason for that war (What happened to al-Qaeda?, Smoking gun on Bush's failure to catch Osama bin Laden?).

In the 10 years the US turned from hunting down al Qaeda in Afghanistan to invading Iraq - a country wholly unaffiliated with al Qaeda (at the time) - rather than concentrate on the actual perpetrators. (see Background material for the second Gulf "War", How many revealed lies is this going to take?, How to tell when George W. Bush is lying, More leaked memo's in Britain, US Invasion of Iraq officially FRAUD, War justifications relied on informants that the CIA had already dismissed as liars., Perle admits invasion was illegal: Say what?, The "case" for War)

Nowadays what's going on is a whole generation of people growing up with the U.S. and Western forces having invaded the Middle East. Many have been radicalized by these invaders (that is, "us") and I think most of the fighting is an effort to evict occupiers rather than people in ideological cahoots with al Qaeda.

In the prosecution of the U.S. led War on Terror many innocents were killed. Sometimes it was weapons going astray, killing innocent bystanders. Sometimes it was mistaken targets. Sometimes it was bogus intelligence. And there was this issue with the invasion of Iraq, resulting in the death of a hundred thousand or more Iraqi's, based on bogus illegal U.S. policies. Radicalization is quite understandable to a people who suffered the pain inflicted upon them by the U.S. led war.

As I write there are thousands of people gathered outside the White House celebrating, even though it's after midnight. And indeed it is wonderful to hear this news, that the supposed leader of al Qaeda, that supposedly is responsible for the murder of thousands of people, that Osama bin Laden has been killed.

But I question whether this will make any difference. Will the radicalized generation give up the hatred of the U.S. engendered in them by U.S. actions?

Threat remains after bin Laden killed by U.S. forces: Suggests that most of the recent attacks on the West were the responsibility of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), not of bin Laden himself.

Al Qaeda No.2 Zawahri most likely to succeed bin Laden: Suggests that the death of bin Laden just means a rearranging of the al Qaeda leadership.

In President Obama's remarks (below) he said "Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will -- remain vigilant at home and abroad." In other words, the War on Terror is not over. We can expect reprisal attacks and a continuing of the war.

Obama clearly wouldn't be willing to say the things I just said about a radicalized Middle East, but essentially we're saying the same thing, just through different lenses.

Remarks by the President on Osama Bin Laden

East Room

11:35 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who’s responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

It was nearly 10 years ago that a bright September day was darkened by the worst attack on the American people in our history. The images of 9/11 are seared into our national memory -- hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreckage of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where the actions of heroic citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction.

And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child’s embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts.

On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, the American people came together. We offered our neighbors a hand, and we offered the wounded our blood. We reaffirmed our ties to each other, and our love of community and country. On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family.

We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda -- an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.

Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we’ve made great strides in that effort. We’ve disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our homeland defense. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot.

Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan border into Pakistan. Meanwhile, al Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world.

And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.

Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.

Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.

For over two decades, bin Laden has been al Qaeda’s leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against our country and our friends and allies. The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda.

Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will -- remain vigilant at home and abroad.

As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not –- and never will be -– at war with Islam. I’ve made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.

Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was. That is what we’ve done. But it’s important to note that our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding. Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people.

Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates.

The American people did not choose this fight. It came to our shores, and started with the senseless slaughter of our citizens. After nearly 10 years of service, struggle, and sacrifice, we know well the costs of war. These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to sign a letter to a family that has lost a loved one, or look into the eyes of a service member who’s been gravely wounded.

So Americans understand the costs of war. Yet as a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened, nor stand idly by when our people have been killed. We will be relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies. We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to al Qaeda’s terror: Justice has been done.

Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who’ve worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.

We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.

Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that we have never forgotten your loss, nor wavered in our commitment to see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another attack on our shores.

And tonight, let us think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11. I know that it has, at times, frayed. Yet today’s achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people.

The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it’s the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place.

Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

END 11:44 P.M. EDT

Links: 

Osama Bin Laden's Compound Already Mapped on Google

Links: 

Remarks by the President on Osama Bin Laden

In the Seventh Year

A subtle and wicked look back over the folly of the last 7 years... "...For the wreckage begat greed ...Beguiling the innocent, they did backdate options, and they did package toxic mortgage securities and they did reprice risk on the basis that it no more existed than famine in a fertile land. .. Thereby did the masters of the universe prosper, with gold, with silver shekels .. For Bush ruled over the whole nation and so sure was he of his righteousness that he did neglect husbandry." READ IT

Article Reference: 

In the Seventh Year

extvideo: 

Sibel Edmonds, a modern day Ellsberg?

In EXCLUSIVE: Daniel Ellsberg Says Sibel Edmonds Case 'Far More Explosive Than Pentagon Papers' is a mindblowing set of claims. In the Vietnam War era the main event which blew apart support for continuation of that war was the bravery of Daniel Ellsberg to reveal the truth, and leak the 'Pentagon Papers'. Ellsberg faced severe criticism and danger but he did it thereby stopping that war. The Brad Blog discusses the case of Sibel Edmonds and her attempt to reveal the truth she discovered about the September 11, 2001 attacks. So far the government has refused her attempts to reveal the truth under the Whistleblower laws, which would give her the legal protection she'd need to safely do so. And she is apparently considering risking all and talking without having whistleblower protection.

Since this is the first I've heard of her, the following will be a summary of the Brad Blog article plus other articles I find by searching for information about her.

EXCLUSIVE: FBI WHISTLEBLOWER SIBEL EDMONDS IS READY TO TALK! Is an earlier Brad Blog posting listing the charges she has made. Essentially the allegations are that the FBI and other agencies dropped several balls, and did other shoddy work related to terrorist investigations prior to September 11, 2001.

Sibel Edmonds: A Patriot Silenced, Unjustly Fired but Fighting Back to Help Keep America Safe is a statement by the ACLU, who is representing her in the appeal of the dismissal of her case claiming unfair firing from her job with the FBI. So, that's a little confusing -- Sibel worked for the FBI starting in September 11, 2001 because of her expertise in Middle Eastern languages. "She was fired less than a year later in March 2002 for reporting shoddy work and security breaches to her supervisors that could have prevented those attacks." She is contesting that firing, and her suit in that matter has been dismissed, and the ACLU is handling her appeal. "Even though she followed all appropriate procedures for reporting her concerns up the chain of command, Edmonds was retaliated against and fired. After her termination, many of Edmonds' allegations were confirmed by the FBI in unclassified briefings to Congress. More than two years later, in May 2004, the Justice Department retroactively classified Edmonds' briefings, as well as the FBI briefings, and forced Members of Congress who had the information posted on their Web sites to remove the documents."

JUST A CITIZEN This is the 2000's and everybody has an official web site. This one is Sibel's, and contains pointers to media, articles, legal documents, etc.

Wikipedia entry for Sibel Edmonds

Lost In Translation: FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Grants First Interview To Ed Bradley is coverage published by CBS News of her appearance on 60 Minutes. The Department of Justice later retroactively classified the 60 Minutes broadcast, along with several other appearances by Sibel Edmonds. Yes, Retroactively classified. As in, the show was broadcast, nationwide, and sometime later the DoJ said "wait, that's top secret". How Orwellian is that? In any case the CBS report describes her allegations as being about documents which went untranslated, and that her supervisors required her to work slowly so that they could justify budget for more employees because obviously the work was backing up.

Complete 911 Timeline Sibel Edmonds and Related Scandals is the subset of the excellent 9/11 Timeline which is related to Sibel Edmonds. The most interesting of these is: November 2001 or December 2001: FBI Translator to Have Exclusive Access to Wiretaps of Surveillance Targets with Whom She Has Links ... it concerns FBI translator Melek Can Dickerson and her recommendation of a change in assigning translators to documents to translate. Previously translators were assigned randomly, but Melek recommended assigning translators to specific targets. She went on to recommend specific assignments for the agents, and that she (Melek) be assigned to the American Turkish Council, an organization where she had previously been employed. What's interesting is that if someone were to attempt a cover-up of nefarious activity, one way to do so is for an insider to hide or skew information being collected about those activities. Melek may have had ulterior motives for recommending she be assigned to do translation of her former employer.

Fmr. FBI Translator: White House Had Intel On Possible Airplane Attack Pre-9/11 is an appearance by Sibel Edmonds, in March 2004, on Democracy Now. This happened in the same time frame as when Condoleeza Rice was still National Security Advisor and made some kind of special allowance to Congress for her to testify. It was in this context that she made the claim the government "had no information about an imminent domestic threat involving airplanes" and then went on to name the White House briefing of August 6, 2001 titled "bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.". Most of the interview discusses the legal wranglings and the gag order which is preventing Sibel from (safely) disclosing the story she has to tell.

Kill the Messenger: Sibel Edmonds focused on the documentary about Sibel Edmond's struggle.

Links: 

EXCLUSIVE: Daniel Ellsberg Says Sibel Edmonds Case 'Far More Explosive Than Pentagon Papers'

Links: 

Sibel Edmonds: A Patriot Silenced, Unjustly Fired but Fighting Back to Help Keep America Safe

Links: 

JUST A CITIZEN

Links: 

Wikipedia entry for Sibel Edmonds

Links: 

Lost In Translation: FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Grants First Interview To Ed Bradley

Links: 

Complete 911 Timeline Sibel Edmonds and Related Scandals

Links: 

Fmr. FBI Translator: White House Had Intel On Possible Airplane Attack Pre-9/11

Links: 

Kill the Messenger: Sibel Edmonds

External Media

CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July

This is one of the significant bits of news which point to possible Bush Administration complicity in the September 11, 2001 attacks. This Guardian (of London) article from November 2001 states that "Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent, according to the French newspaper Le Figaro.... Bin Laden is reported to have arrived in Dubai on July 4 from Quetta in Pakistan with his own personal doctor, nurse and four bodyguards, to be treated in the urology department. While there he was visited by several members of his family and Saudi personalities, and the CIA.... The CIA chief was seen in the lift, on his way to see Bin Laden, and later, it is alleged, boasted to friends about his contact. He was recalled to Washington soon afterwards."

In general the article undermines the claim that Osama bin Laden has been cut off from the Saudi leading families. Supposedly when Osama bin Laden became a radical extremist he was cut off from his family and the Saudi officialdom shunned him, banning him from returning to Saudi Arabia. Supposedly. However this article as well as many others show that there are continuous contacts between Osama bin Laden, his family, and prominent Saudi people.

The particular consternating question is if CIA agents had contact with Osama bin Laden in July 2001, then why didn't we do something about him? At that time he was sought over responsibility over several previous attacks against the U.S., such as the bombing's in Kenya and of the U.S.S. Cole.

Article Reference: 

CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July

extvideo: 

September 11

Today is an anniversary.. actually every day is an anniversary. If you think of the bloodshed humankind has visited upon each other there is no date which is not an anniversary of bloodshed. It seems, though, that September 11 has a peculiar history.

Of course everybody remembers this September 11: 1973: President overthrown in Chile coup right? President Salvador Allende of Chile, the world's first democratically-elected Marxist head of state, has died in a revolt led by army leaders. Except the BBC report does not say that the revolt was instigated by the U.S. Salvador Allende @ Wikipedia, Augusto Pinochet @ Wikipedia, 1973 Chilean coup d'état @ Wikipedia, Project FUBELT @ Wikipedia

Or how about the U.S. Invasion of Honduras to support domination of that country by the United Fruit Company?

And, the British Mandate of Palestine began on this date in 1922. This was part of the general occupation of the Middle East by Europe, especially Great Britain, following World War I. The Middle East had been ruled by the Ottoman Empire which crumbled in the wake of that war. The British had administrative control of Palestine and several other areas in the Middle East. I suspect it was the period of British control which led to a portion of the problems we're experiencing today stemming from the Middle East.

For instance I noticed in the Wikipedia that on September 11, 1921 (one year before the mandate began) Nahalal, the first moshav in Israel, is settled. A moshav is a similar concept to the Kibbutzim, but instead of being socialistic in nature (in a kibbutz nobody owns anything, the kibbutz owns it all) the moshav relies on shared ownership. The establishment of Nahalal was part of the early settlement of Palestine by the Jewish from Eastern Europe. The, uh, annexation of Palestine by the Jews leading to the establishment of Israel started much earlier than the mid 1940's.

And in a curious coincidence of history: 1941 - Ground broken for the construction of The Pentagon.

1978 - U.S. President Jimmy Carter, President Sadat of Egypt, and Prime Minister Begin of Israel met at Camp David and agreed on a framework for peace between Israel and Egypt and a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.

1982 - The international forces, which were guaranteeing the safety of Palestinian refugees following Israel's 1982 Invasion of Lebanon, left Beirut. Five days later, several thousand refugees were massacred in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

1987 - Twelve people die in a shoot-out in Jean-Bertrand Aristide's church in Haiti

1990 - U.S. President George H. W. Bush delivers a nationally televised speech in which he threatens the use of force to remove Iraqi soldiers from Kuwait, which Iraq had recently invaded. He mentions the term "New World Order" in this speech for the first time, which is also named "Towards a New World Order".

1998 - Independent counsel Kenneth Starr sends a report to the U.S. Congress accusing President Bill Clinton of 11 possible impeachable offenses.

References: September 11 @ Wikipedia

The "No Plane timeline"

In the "no plane timeline" the author of oilempire.us examines the claim that there was a conspiracy attached to the September 11, 2001 attack because it seems there was no plane that hit the Pentagon. There's some curious aspects to the Pentagon attack, that's for sure, but I doubt those curiousities indicate that there was no airplane.

These people want us to believe that someone arranged for an airliner to be taken surreptitiously to Cleveland and that instead a missile was fired at the Pentagon.

It is curious that the early pictures of the Pentagon damage show only a small hole in the outer wall. How can a Boeing 757 leave a small hole in a building?

The root of this story comes from French political activist Thierry Meyssan who constructs this theory and it spreads from there. The timeline linked above attempts to show that the spread of this story is based on some misinterpretation of the evidence.

For me the key point countering that theory is ... what happened to the people on that airplane? If they were flown to Cleveland and instead a missile was shot at the Pentagon, then why didn't the people on that airplane return to their families? Were they instead taken elsewhere and killed separately? If so, then why?

This theory seems to violate Occam's Razor by introducing extra complication.

9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics

Loose Change is a documentary depicting some serious questions about the veracity of the claims around the September 11, 2001 attacks. There's huge doubt that the 9/11 Commission came even close to the truth, just as there are huge doubts that the Warren Commission came up with anything close to the truth regarding the Kennedy Assassination. It seems to me that a whole new industry of conspiracists are going to be debating September 11, 2001 for the next 40 years.

On Democracy Now, Amy Goodman hosted the makers of the Loose Change movie in a debate with editors from Popular Mechanics who had written a book debunking many of the claims of September 11, 2001 theorists.

Review of 9/11: Press For Truth

How did the September 11, 2001 attacks come to happen? Or, more accurately, why were they allowed to happen? Our government leaders such as GW Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, etc, claimed that nobody in the government imagined such an attack could have happened. But, they were lying, because many in the government had warnings, had thought up that kind of scenario, there were many warnings from foreign intelligence services, etc. We were told to believe that even with warnings the plot could not have been stopped. If so, then what of this recent plot discovered in Britain to bomb airliners, which was stopped by arrests before the attack was carried out? It goes on and on.

The movie, 9/11: Press For Truth (web site), is about the holes in the official story and some daring individuals who researched as much of the truth as can be learned from public sources. We of course cannot know what our government leaders actually did and are actually responsible for. But the public record, as reported in the news media, paints an interesting picture, one of official malfeasance and possibly official cooperation with the launching of those attacks.

Part of the movie centers on a group of relatives of people killed on September 11, 2001. They had questions that weren't being answered. In their grief they banded together to begin researching to find the truth to why their relatives had died. In part the 9/11 Commission was launched due to the efforts of those family members to find the truth.

Consider, though, the contrast in the cost of the investigation into Clintons sexual escapades, and the cost of running the 9/11 Commission. The Clinton investigation cost taxpayers over $100 million while the 9/11 Commission cost taxpayers around $16 million. Tell me, of those two investigations which would you rather have be thorough?

To a large extent the 9/11 Commission was just as satisfying as the Warren Commission was in explaining the Kennedy Assassination. In other words, we can expect conspiracy theorists to be debating the September 11, 2001 attacks for the next 40 years, perhaps. But there is a big difference in terms of technology of the early 1960's and today. Today we have web sites on which people can share information, resources, and connect with each other. One such web site is cooperativeresearch.org which is home to the Complete 911 Timeline.

The Complete 911 Timeline plays a major role in this movie, and is itself a massively useful piece of work. It is the work of individuals sharing data through the cooperativeresearch.org web site. The data is summaries and links to news reports. It is also published as a book: The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute: A Comprehensive Chronicle of the Road to 9/11--and America's Response

The problem with this story is that while the individual pieces to the story are well reported, those pieces are widely scattered. You might have a tidbit in a front page article one day, another in an article in another newspaper buried in the back another day, another on a TV program a month later, and so on. By being so widely scattered it's almost impossible for an individual to pull it all together. On the cooperativeresearch.org web site the data is collected and is organized by date, by event, or by individual. You can follow the threads very easily in multiple directions and see the connections and the real history.

The movie presents a small portion of the data listed on the cooperativeresearch.org web site. But the part given in the movie is explosive.

For example .. al Qaeda was an outgrowth of the Mujahadeen forces. The Mujahadeen were supported by the CIA during the 1980's to give the Russian Military their own Vietnam, and to drive them out of Afghanistan. The CIA funneled money and material through Pakastan's secret service, the ISI. After Russia was driven from Afghanistan, the U.S. supposedly walked away from involvement with Pakistan and the Mujahadeen. The movie describes however that the ISI ran training camps and some people from those camps became Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, while others became geurillas in Kashmir, and that overall the distinction between Taliban, al Qaeda and the guerillas in Kashmir are very weak.

In October 2001 evidence was released by the U.S. of payments being funneled through Mohammad Atta from a specific person in Pakistan. This person was originally said to be an al Qaeda "paymaster" but the cooperativeresearch team later learned he was an ISI agent. Incidentally, the head of ISI, Mahmood Ahmed was in Washington DC on the eve of the September 11 attack, on the same day that the final payments were wired from Pakistan to Mohammed Atta.

Another detail of the ISI involvement is in the escape of al Qaeda operatives from Afghanistan.

November 13, 2001: Al-Qaeda Convoy Flees to Tora Bora; US Fails to Attack: A couple times during the invasion of Afghanistan, large convoys of Al Qaeda and others were escaping first from Kabul, later from Jalalabad, etc. Rather than bomb the convoys, they were able to drive on. Later when they were bottled up in the Tora Bora area, some escape routes were left open, and the al Qaeda people escaped along the open routes.

November 14-25, 2001: US Secretly Authorizes Airlift of Pakistani and Taliban Fighters: Another of the escape operations was a large airlift operation flying al Qaeda operatives from Northern Afghanistan into Pakistan. At that time the U.S. had a large force there, had airplanes there, no doubt had AWACS aircraft in the area, and knew very well that an airlift was flying dozens of flights between northern Afghanistan and Pakistan. The U.S. could have stopped the airlift, but it was allowed to proceed. Pakistan’s President “Musharraf won American support for the airlift by warning that the humiliation of losing hundreds—and perhaps thousands—of Pakistani Army men and intelligence operatives would jeopardize his political survival.”

I know there was a lot of details that just flew by there. But the story is that Pakistan is essentially the benefactors of both the Taliban and al Qaeda, perhaps both are merely covert branches of the ISI. And it is Pakistan which the U.S. has proclaimed to be a major part of the War On Terror. Either the U.S. Intelligence is incredibly naive about the connections between Pakistan's ISI and al Qaeda, or else the U.S. is tacitly in approval, and perhaps this explains the weak efforts to capture and kill al Qaeda?

Interestingly these reports are in the news right now:

In Britain there is a report about Pakistan's ISI aiding al Qaida and Taliban forces. Musharraf denies the claim, and Tony Blair has to make nicey-nice with Musharraf to "defuse" the situation. Musharraf rejects claim that agents assist terrorists, Musharraf denies helping al-Qa'ida, Pakistan's ISI is too close to Muslim terrorists: British Report, Document: Pakistan Agency Backs al-Qaida

And in Pakistan a couple weeks ago the ISI made a deal with some local leaders. Karzai questions whether pact will reduce terrorism

9/11: Press for Truth

URL: 

9/11: Press for Truth

Description: 

This is a documentary movie exploring what happened to create the September 11, 2001 attack, what the government leaders knew, the cover-up of the attack, and more. (buy from amazon.com, my review)

The misappropriation of September 11, 2001

This clip is Jon Stewart on The Daily Show of September 12, 2006 discussing the 5th anniversary of, the missappropriation of September 11, 2001.

Complete 9/11 Timeline

URL: 

Complete 9/11 Timeline

Description: 

Open-Content project managed by Paul Thompson. This is a series of events, researched and recorded through the Cooperative Research web site, of the precursors to the September 11, 2001 attack, the events of that day, and resulting events. It is extremely detailed and comprehensive.

9/11: A Closer Look

A video going over some of the questions surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks.

The video tries to relate the WTC 7 collapse to a controlled demolition. And at the same time the video talks repeatedly about how the two towers collapsed at "free fall" speed. But the video fails to make a case that the two towers were collapsed as a controlled demolition.

What does "free fall" speed mean? If you know your high school physics you remember that "free fall" is a rate of acceleration when you drop an object. An object falling freely accelerates, in earth gravity, at 32 feet/second/second. If you do the calculations, an object falling from the height of the trade center towers would take a bit over 8 seconds to fall to the ground. And, if you watch the video of the collapse of both towers, their collapse was over in 8-9 seconds. This means the structure of the building was not resisting the falling of the buildings, but that the structure of the buildings were collapsing at the same speed as the building was falling.

The big question is, how did that happen?

The video shows some examples of controlled demolitions of office buildings. When a building is collapsed under controlled demolition, it falls into a neat pile, because engineering experts who specialize in this work have planted bombs in the building at precise locations where they know that by knocking out some support structures gravity will take over and make the building fall. An interesting factoid is these buildings generally have a cloud of dust billow around the bottom of the building, due to the explosives.

The collapse of WTC 7, as shown in this video, had a cloud of dust billowing around the base of the building. At the same time the upper floors collapsed down in a nice and orderly fashion. Just like a controlled demolition.

However, the collapse of the two towers did not happen that way. Instead it clearly started at the upper floors, at the location of the airplane strikes. The cloud of dust and debris formed at the upper floors, not at the base.

But what happened. I'm having a hard time imagining how the lower floors allowed the towers to fall at free fall speed.

The fire which supposedly weakened the building was only occuring in the upper floors. Proof? Firefighters and others were able to get to the upper floors, so if there was a fire raging that weakened the whole building then how did the firefighters get so high up in the building? This shows the fire was contained to the upper floors.

Then that leaves us pondering, just how did the building structure get weakened to allow the towers to collapse at free fall speeds?

9/11 Truth: Even More Video Proof of Controlled Demolitions: Videos from several sources of the collapses of the buildings. The collapse of the towers was not the same kind of controlled demolition that was done to WTC 7.

9/11 Truth: David Ray Griffin Speaks @ Santa Rosa: A very nice and thoughtful presentation discussing the rapid collapse of the buildings.

Jim Marrs: 9/11 Truth in 10 Minutes: Jim Marrs is a long-time conspiracy researcher. In 10 minutes he goes over the official September 11, 2001 story, completely deconstructing it, and explaining why he thinks the official story is the real conspiracy. Kinda makes me think of the Kennedy assassination and how nobody believes the one-bullet theory.

NORAD Stand-Down on 9/11: Not Just Simple Incompetence: Leaving aside the issue of the quickness of the buildings falling, why weren't the airplanes stopped? The U.S. has an excellent Air Force. Between the FAA and the Air Force there are already known and understood procedures for handling planes who go astray from their flight plan. For example in the late 90's a Lear Jet became unresponsive to controllers and within four minutes the procedures kicked in, the FAA had contacted the Air Force, and within 20 minutes an Air Force jet was next to the Lear Jet and trailing it.

On September 11, 2001 there were several wargames excercises being conducted. Coincidentally. Some involved injecting false radar signals into the air traffic tracking system. The false signals increased the confusion of the day. The mere existance of the exercises meant some of the planes were diverted to thousands of miles away, and that at some moments questions were made whether a report was part of the exercise or real life.

9/11 Truth: Dick Cheney was in command of NORAD on 9/11: On September 11, 2001 a new situation was in place regarding to NORAD. Never had NORAD been under civilian control, but Dick Cheney had, earlier in 2001, ordered that he was to be in control of NORAD. Meaning that on September 11, 2001 it was Dick Cheney telling NORAD what to do about the airplanes including whether to shoot them down.

Michael Ruppert: 9/11, Peak Oil, and the Fascist State: Discussing how it was clear in the earliest days of the Bush Administration, that it was a "War Cabinet" and that their intent was to push the U.S. into a major war. Namely, that this is a war which would never end whose purpose is to gain control over the remaining oil.

9/11 Truth: Mohammad Atta & The Patsies: Goes over a way of understanding conspiratoriatal plots. You have your patsies, your moles, and your government insiders handling them. The patsies are the ones lined up to take the fall, but they're really being minded over by the moles and insiders.

Keith Olbermann's special commetary for the anniversary of 9/11

On the 5th anniversary of September 11, 2001 we had G.W. Bush and several ceremonies commemorating the events. Here we have Keith Olbermann reminding us of the incompetency and impeachability of the Bush administration. The guy who promised he was a Uniter, not a Divider, who went on to be the most divisive person one could imagine in the Presidency. The guy who had overwhelming support in the fall of 2001, and who squandered it with lies and incompetency and going against the grain of world opinion.

Iraq, Vietnam all over again?

In Permanent bases in Iraq? Tom Engelhardt suggests we interpret Iraq as Vietnam.  Iraq is a worsening situation, where it's hard to see any face-saving exit from the country and where the population is increasingly rising up against the American presence.  Plus, at home there's a growing anger over this war.  I don't know what's taken the American people so long, the war is clearly illegal and immoral.

Engelhardt's main point of discussion is to contrast the plan for troop reductions with a fact "on the ground".  Namely the presence of the permanent bases that have been constructed, which cost several billion dollars.  An army engineer tasked with facilities development described them in an engineering magazine article with "staggering" cost.  If the plan is to withdraw, then why spend billions of dollars on bases?

One of the bases has finally been discussed in the mainstream press as having a "small town feel".  It has all the comforts of home, extensive telecom and other infrastructure, etc.  And in the London Telegraph is another covering the still-under-construction al-Asad airbase.  Apparently each of these bases cover 15-20 square miles of land.  There are at least four of these bases in Iraq and the fact we're stating this as "at least" is a symptom of the secrecy.

Public meeting on Iraq, Iraq policy, Rep. Murtha, and the possibilities to impeach the President

I just watched a 2 1/2 hour long meeeting recorded from C-SPAN, which I learned about from here: American Foreign Policy, Part Deux. It was an opportunity for Representative Murtha to explain and discuss a proposal he's made to withdraw from Iraq. The Republicans and Neocons have been jumping all over him, calling him a coward, unpatriotic, etc (note: he served in two wars, in the Marines, and has a ream of medals to show for his service). The action towards Rep. Murtha is just following the prior pattern when anybody dares to say the slightest thing against the Administration, that out of the woodwork comes various kinds of attacks and most especially to question the patriotism of the person who made the criticism.

Are so insecure that they can't stand a little scrutiny and criticism ...??

Anyway, here is what Karen Kwiatkowski has to say about the C-SPAN show:

A lot of Americans are waking up to this Part One, as the recent standing room only town meeting co-hosted by Virginia Democrat Jim Moran and Pennsylvania Republican Jack Murtha. Watch the video. It is shock television at its best, courtesy C-span. Murtha and Moran say they want troops out soonest, and both insist we are not building permanent military bases in Iraq. Like I say, it's shock TV - see for yourself!

(The video is linked above -- you will need the Real Video player to view it)

They held a "town hall" meeting that was jam-packed, where they turned away more people than could actually attend the event, etc. It was a very spirited event from what I can tell via the recording.

Rep. Murtha's suggestion is that we should withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq NOW. That we should let the Iraq government take over. That we should keep U.S. troops in the vicinity (e.g. Kuwait), I suppose so that troops are easily redeployed if the situation were to flare up.

I'm not so sure that's a good idea. Much as I am angry over the war in the first place, at how unnecessary it is, how it is a distraction from the real problem, how the administration lied to the world and the American people in order to launch the war, that withdrawing would leave a power vacuum that would simply result in a civil war as the different factions compete with each other to grab all the power. At least, that's what I am afraid of. Which just leaves me highly conflicted because we have no ethical, legal, or moral right to be in Iraq doing what we are doing.

Rep. Murtha also talked at length on the corruption (e.g. "no-bid" contracts which simply means the U.S. is being ripped off by defense contractors) and the horribly underfunded Veterans Administration (paid for by the tax cuts).

Many times the questions were "When are we going to Impeach the President". It was enlightening to hear both Rep. Murtha and Morin basically agree with the sentiment. It's basically been proved that the President and all the Presidents People lied us into this war, that it was premeditated back to 1992 (at least), that it has been horribly mismanaged, that the insurgency that is killing so many U.S. and Iraq people is directly attributable to the mismanagement, that the administration is criminally culpable in this, and that it is a reprehensible situation. Both of the Representatives basically agreed with this, but they kept saying how Impeachment was basically impossible.

They pointed to an investigatory hearing held by Rep. Conyers meant to explore the same issue. He just barely got approval to hold that hearing, in the first place, and the space he was given to hold it was in the basement. Relegated to the basement. See, the practical fact is that the Administrations party controls the Congress, and so long as the leadership is as it is, there is practically zero chance of Impeachment.

What Rep. Morin kept returning to is that we, the people, the ones for whom this most perfect union of a government exists, it is we who need to organize. The solution is in the ballot box, and it is in organizing the democracy for which we stand to stand up and take back the reins of government.

The 9/11 attack a conspiracy?

While glancing through the Project Censored 2005 report, one item stuck out.

#9: Widow Brings RICO Case Against U.S. government for 9/11

RICO is the "Racketeering" law, normally used against organized crime. This woman, Ellen Mariani lost her husband, Louis Neil Mariani, and launched herself into an investigation. The more she connected the dots, the more convinced she became that the highest levels of the Bush administration knew about the attack beforehand, and purposely allowed it to continue.

The suit documents the detailed forewarnings from foreign governments and FBI agents; the unprecedented delinquency of our air defense; the inexplicable half hour dawdle of our Commander in Chief at a primary school after hearing the nation was under deadly attack; the incessant invocation of national security and executive privilege to suppress the facts; and the obstruction of all subsequent efforts to investigate the disaster. It concludes that compelling evidence will be presented in this case, through discovery, subpoena power and testimony, that defendants failed to act to prevent 9/11, knowing the attacks would lead to an international war on terror.

http://www.911truth.org/

http://www.911forthetruth.com/

http://www.911visibility.org/

http://www.septembereleventh.org/

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/

http://www.911independentcommission.org/

http://www.911citizenswatch.org/

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/

http://www.askquestions.org/

CIA "sitting on" damning 9/11 report

Bush suppresses damning CIA report on 9/11
Intelligence official says a report that is "very embarrassing for the administration" is being withheld from Congress until after the election. By Robert Scheer

http://www.salon.com/opinion/scheer/.../ciareport/

Robert Scheer's article cites an intelligence official (unnamed) saying a very damning 9/11 report, that "names names", has been ready for release since June 2004. But it is being witheld despite the fact that Congress specifically requested this report two years ago.

It's easy to see this in the worst light possible, as Scheer does. He implies the report must be so damaging, that the dissent-shy Bush administration would obviously suppress the report. The source is claiming they're waiting until after the election ... for obvious reasons.

"It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner before 9/11 is being suppressed," an intelligence official who has read the report told me, adding that "the report is potentially very embarrassing for the administration, because it makes it look like they weren't interested in terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward."

The stated topic of the report is most interesting, and we all would like to see this:

"What all the other reports on 9/11 did not do is point the finger at individuals, and give the how and what of their responsibility. This report does that," said the intelligence official. "The report found very senior-level officials responsible."

According to Scheer's source, the only valid reason to withhold a report like this is "national security". But this escape hole hasn't even been invoked. They're simply witholding it.

In the absence of evidence the mind wants to fill the void with ...what? In this case we all have the worst suspicions possible, don't we? I, for example, have already called for the impeachment of President Bush on the skimpy evidence available to me. I certainly don't have the whole story, and look where the void of hard evidence has led me?

To be sure, the evidence we do have in the public is already very damning. I did not call for President Bush's impeachment lightly, but it was only after assuring myself it was highly likely he and his administration have been lying through their teeth for years. After all, if lying about sexual escapades warrants impeachment, then so does lying to create a war.

In any case, that's all the meaning this gives us. A lack of truth, and wishing for the truth to be revealed. As the golden rule says, thems that gots the gold makes the rules. Heavy sigh.

Re-examining September 11, 2001

The attacks on September 11, 2001 clearly is the defining moment shaping the world events that followed, and shaped the lives we followed after that day. This is just like previous attacks such as December 7, 1941 that shaped the events of those years.

Since this attack was clearly so significant an event, and provided justification for the U.S. attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, it is worth re-examining that day.

In summary, it's clear from the following discussion that the publicly told story about this attack is not what really happened. We may never know what really happened because the truth is buried behind Top Secret classifications and Oaths of Secrecy by U.S. government personnell. Clearly the attacks of that day have greatly affected the following events and are being used as justification for even more acts. The acts taken with September 11 justification are not, apparently, in the best interest of the U.S. citizens, so in whose interest are they?

In the vacuum of not knowing, the mind wants to substitute many possibilities. Browsing through the Internet for related information, you see any number of theories proposed. The truth is that we don't know the truth, and that the Administration is actively lying to us. We can't leap to conclusions because we have limited knowledge, but the knowledge we do have shows the lie is happening every day. The lie is being allowed to continue through the apathy of the American citizenry in not demanding the truth.

By way of example, it's clear the publicly told story of President Kennedy's assassination is a fairy tale (lone gunman, lone bullet, my ass), and the truth is suppressed behind Top Secret classifications. And what of the broad range of theories have been concocted to explain what really happened on that day? The same is happening now as we try to unravel the truth of September 11, 2001.

See books & videos below

Timeline of events (FTW article)

The party line: Mohammed Atta and crew

We all know the official story of that day, because we lived through it and have been subjected to tellings and retellings of the official versions of events. The outline is something like this:

• Terrorist cells were actively pursuing flight training for several years.
• These cells ultimately included the 19 hijackers on the four aircraft, with Mohammed Atta being anointed with the role of leadership in this plan.
• They lived for a time in Hamburg Germany, and for other times in Florida.
• They were associated with al Qaeda, an organization led by Osama bin Laden and being hosted in Afghanistan by the Taliban.
• Both organizations had been part of the effort to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan during the 1980's.
• These organizations follow a fundamentalist and violent form of Islam.
• The named hijackers are largely from Saudi Arabia.
• The airplanes used in the attacks were Boeing 767 and 757's, commercial passenger airliners.
• The airplanes were flown into their targets (the World Trade Center and the Pentagon) by the hijackers. The flight training they had sought presumably was meant to give them skills necessary to fly airliners into buildings.
• Numerous cell-phone calls are attributed to passengers aboard these aircraft.
• In one aircraft the passengers staged a revolt and managed to prevent the airplane from reaching an unknown target in Washington DC (presumably the White House?), and instead crashing in rural Pennsylvania.
• The September 11, 2001 attack was part of a series of attacks that included the World Trade Center bombing conducted in the early 1990's, attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the S.S. Cole.

Political fallout & resulting wars

The events since that day have been most alarming. They include

• Launching a war in Afghanistan, supposedly with the main purpose to find Osama bin Laden.
• The toppling of the Taliban and al Qaeda regime in Afghanistan.
• Mysterious anthrax attacks that have never been publicly solved and are no longer mentioned.
• A foisting upon the people of a so-called PATRIOT Act, whose provisions were approved in a closed door meeting, and which Congress did not know the details at the time they voted on the bill. This bill contains provisions which greatly erodes personal freedoms.
• A declaration by Congress which effectively gave the President a blank check to do anything he desired for as long as he wanted to do it. One of the costs is an $87 billion requisition to pay for the war in Iraq.
• Former Governor Ridge becoming the Secretary of Homeland Defense, a new department put into place by a President who promised to trim government but instead has overseen a huge increase in government size.
• Nationalizing the airport security industry, by a President who promised to trim government.
• Several mysterious security warnings and raised terror alert levels.
• A year of building up Iraq as a serious threat, leading to a war to topple the Iraq government. This despite Iraq having nothing to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks.
• A national forgetting of the status of Afghanistan, and the apparent resurgence of Taliban effective control over Afghanistan, due in part to being distracted by Iraq.
• A huge number of lies put forth to justify the Iraq threat and therefore justify the war.
• The Iraq war was the first unilateral act of war the U.S. has ever perpetrated. Why?

Clearly, given these events, this is a time of great importance. The attack on September 11, 2001 proved to be great grounds of justification for the Administration to take a number of acts on the minds of neo-conservatives for over a decade. Acts which the typical person on the street would not have found agreeable but for the threat of danger as demonstrated by the September 11, 2001 attack.

This danger is purported to be from "terrorists". Given the lies which the Administration is known to have said, how can anything they say be trusted. These mysterious terrorist warnings which occur from time to time, can we trust that the government is telling us the truth? By raising the terror alert level they interrupt our lives, but for what? Is it more lies, or is it credible warnings of imminent danger?

The word "terrorist" is used to broadly label a certain class of activists, but not used to label the same type of activities when its done by others. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, yes? Terrorism is merely an act of war, because all acts of war involve creating terror in the being of your opponent. Are the IRA or the Palestinians terrorists or freedom fighters? Depends on who you ask, doesn't it? And what about the times the CIA has used car bombs against civilian targets? Doesn't that make the U.S. a terrorist state?

Did the attack really happen as we've been told?

It may seem ludicrous to ask this question. After all, some kind of attacks did happen on the day of September 11, 2001. I, myself, witnessed the results of that attack when I visited New York City during October 2001. And there are the millions of eyewitnesses who watched the events live, either in person, or on television, as they took place on that highly eventful day.

On that day I arose and, as is usual, turned on the morning NPR news (Morning Edition; broadcast over KQED). It took quite awhile for the words to sink in, since it was so strange to hear the reporters talking of the World Trade Center having collapsed, and other buildings being in danger of collapsing. Collapse? Say what? This comes from entering a story halfway through (the attacks having occurred while I was still asleep at 6:00 AM pacific time). Needless to say, once it sank in there was a definite sinking feeling in my stomach as I realized the importance.

It cannot, therefore, be questioned whether the attacks occurred. It was live on television, and the World Trade Center is definitely missing in action.

It turns out, though, that the actual story has some holes. The holes then raise doubts as to the truth of the official story. And, in the vaccuum of lacking a reasonable explanation, all sorts of theories crop up as to what could possibly have happened. This is analagous to the abundance of theories about what really happened when President Kennedy was assassinated, another case where the official party line is false (lone gunman my ass).

What are the holes?

Cell phone calls from hijacked airplanes: We were told that many passengers on the hijacked airplanes made cell phone calls. For example, a stewardess who called into the office giving an accounting of the hijacking, ending with screams of "OHMYGOD" as she realized they were flying in low over New York City. Others called home and left messages on answering machines. The most example is the passengers of the jet which crashed in Pennsylvania, that they called home, learned of the other attacks which had already happened on the World Trade Center, realized their airplane was going to be used in another attack, and decided to take matters into their own hands apparently diverting the airplane into the ground.

The problem is that cell phones can't connect to the cell phone system from the altitude airliners fly at.

Consider a few facts of physics. Cell phone towers broadcast for a 5 mile diameter (or thereabouts). You don't notice this in the city because there are so many of the towers, and they overlap pretty well to create the illusion of seamless service. But get outside of the built-up areas and coverage drops off pretty quick, doesn't it? This happens in the upward direction just as rapidly as it does in the horizontal direction. That is, an airplane cruising at 35,000 feet is at a 6-7 mile altitude, yes? Cell phone tower transmissions don't reach that far, which means the cell phones could not have been used from the hijacked airplanes.

For experimental proof, look here:

http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6

I'll point out in passing one flaw in the reasoning those researchers follow. Most airplanes nowadays have telephone service built into most seatbacks. Not that it gets used very often, but it's there. Those telephones work from airliner altitude, presumably via some other means than cell phone towers (sattelites?). It is very possible that those telephones are the ones used to make the telephone calls, and the press is just being confused when they call it "cell phone calls".

The damage to the Pentagon too small for a 757 airplane: Basically, the hole in the Pentagon was not large enough to fit a 757 aircraft. Yet, there was no debris lying around outside the Pentagon, so if a 757 did hit the building then the debris must have somehow went fully into the building. But if the hole isn't large enough to fit the airplane, then how could the debris have gone fully into the building? Further, only one engine was found inside the building, while a 757 carries two engines, and that one engine is smaller than 757 engines.

Hmmm, you say? These two articles go over the details

http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3

http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=13

"It is alleged that on Sept 11, 2001 a hijacked Boeing 757, American Airlines Flight 77, hit the Pentagon. It is not in dispute that something hit the Pentagon wall and damaged it. Neither is it in dispute that AA 77 is missing. But was AA 77 involved in the Pentagon incident? This article presents an analysis of the physical aspects of the incident, and concludes with a brief examination of the issue of eyewitnesses."

A 757 aircraft has a 125 foot wingspan. However the hole in the Pentagon was about 65 feet wide. And that 65 foot hole was after collapse of a section of the Pentagon. As seen clearly in the photo's, the initial hole was much smaller, and the fire caused collapse widening the hole.

Therefore, what happened to the wings? Why weren't there many solid pieces found? The above two pages refer to many pictures of airliner crashes, most of which have relatively intact debris. Airplanes generally do not vaporise when they crash, instead there are lots of debris strewn about. One would expect the Pentagon crash, then, to also have a lot of debris, but it isn't to be found.

Strange pattern of debris in the Pennsylvania crash site: Normally when airplanes crash, the debris are localized to the crash site pretty well. However, the Pennsylvania crash site had debris, including human remains, scattered over many miles.

Details: http://www.911review.org/Wiki/Flight93.shtml

My take of the details presented is that it was shot down by the air force, but the government doesn't want to admit having done so.

Where were the Washington DC air defenses: Washington DC is (or should definitely be) one of the most heavily guarded pieces of airspace in the country. How could an airplane be, after two were already used against the World Trade Center, allowed to fly into that airspace and be used to attack the Pentagon? Further, why wasn't the squadron at Andrews Air Force base scrambled? Why was the squadron scrambled located in southern Virginia?

Details: http://www.911review.org/Wiki/AirForceStanddown.shtml

How could they identify the hijackers so quickly: Within a couple days we were told lists of names. How was this found? Simply by going through boarding manifests and listing anybody with an arabic name? Were the hijackers stupid enough to go by their real names? Wouldn't they have the means to have an alias name to go by? How is it that Mohammed Atta's passport was found in the World Trade Center wreckage, when it would have been in one of the airplanes, hence in the core of a fire which was hot enough (supposedly) to melt the support girders causing the buildings to collapse.

Details: http://www.911review.org/Wiki/HijackersAliveAndWell.shtml

As noted, many of the people named by the FBI were still alive and living in Saudi Arabia. In one case, the named person had died in Florida a year before in a small airplane accident.

So much is being made over Moussaoui being potentially the "20th hijacker" when, according to the details referenced above, even the FBI Director Meuller has admitted doubt over the accuracy of the hijacker list.

How could they pin the blame on Osama bin Laden so quickly: Ditto. Especially interesting is that Osama bin Laden and his group had previously been in the employ of the CIA, during the Mujahedin war to oust Russia from Afghanistan.

Consider this press release from the U.S. Senate Republican Committee:

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htm (cached)

Under the heading "Three Key Issues for Examination" we see this statement:

2. The Militant Islamic Network (page 5): Along with the weapons, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and VEVAK intelligence operatives entered Bosnia in large numbers, along with thousands of mujahedin ("holy warriors") from across the Muslim world. Also engaged in the effort were several other Muslim countries (including Brunei, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Turkey) and a number of radical Muslim organizations. For example, the role of one Sudan-based "humanitarian organization," called the Third World Relief Agency, has been well-documented. The Clinton Administration's "hands-on" involvement with the Islamic network's arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by U.S. government officials.

The Third World Relief Agency in question is an earlier name for Osama bin Laden's operations. As late as 1995 the mujahedin, including Osama bin Laden, was heavily involved with U.S. secret services. Note the countries said to be involved are the same ones which, today, the U.S. is actively hunting the evil terrorist threat. Could it be that the U.S. knows where to hunt because we, the U.S., previously created these groups?